PostKing MCP Server

storyline_execute

Execute a storyline to generate content drafts for all selected line items. Poll the operation ID to track progress until completion.

Instructions

Async. Execute a storyline — generates content drafts for all selected line items. Returns { operationId, status } — poll get_job with the operationId until state=completed. Typically takes ~3–8 min. Call storyline_estimate first to surface the credit cost before execution.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "storylineId": "<storylineId>"
    },
    "name": "storyline_execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brandId`	No	Brand ID (defaults to active brand)
`storylineId`	Yes	Storyline ID to execute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.7Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states async execution, return format { operationId, status }, polling via get_job, estimated duration (~3-8 min), and a prerequisite cost check. This is rich and transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how to track progress, and a cost warning. Front-loaded with the key verb 'Execute' and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an async tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, polling mechanism, expected runtime, and a prerequisite cost estimation. This is adequate for an agent to invoke and manage the operation successfully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (brandId, storylineId), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description adds context about storyline execution but doesn't introduce new parameter details beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb 'Execute' + resource 'storyline' + outcome 'generates content drafts for all selected line items.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like storyline_estimate and storyline_get by clearly stating the action and deliverable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs 'Call storyline_estimate first to surface the credit cost before execution' and 'poll get_job with the operationId until state=completed,' providing clear usage sequencing and follow-up steps. This gives the agent actionable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server